Donald Trump Is NOT Wildly Popular And Is Nothing Like Bernie Sanders

This campaign season is witnessing some of the most shallow analyses of the political landscape to ever be spun by the Perpetually Erroneous Pundit Squad. The constant repetition in the media of the non-existent dominance of Donald Trump’s phony candidacy is boxing out any rational examination of the progress of the primaries. But it is all as ephemeral as a soap bubble and just as easily burst.

Sideshow Donald Trump

Since the Fox News GOP debate, Trump’s standing in the polls has actually declined. He is still leading the other Republican contestants, but by smaller margins. And throughout what has been characterized as a phenomenon, Trump has never garnered the support of more than a small percentage of the electorate. For the most part, Trump has held a lead with about 20-25% of just the Republican voters in the polls. What most pundits fail to notice is that that means there are 75-80% of Republicans who are not supporting him. Since when is that an expression of massive, grassroots popularity? What’s more, he has consistently had the highest unfavorables of any candidate, Republican or Democratic.

The only reason that Trump is ahead of his rivals now is that there are so many of them. The sheer quantity of non-Trump candidates disperses voters so that none of them can accumulate enough support to rise above the batshit insane constituency that Trump has managed to sew up. Once the field begins to narrow, support will migrate to the stronger candidates who have the endurance to last beyond a couple of primaries. When there are only two or three other candidates they will all be beating Trump, if he is even still in the race.

The press likes to inject explanations for Trump’s fake acclaim that generally takes the position that the American people are angry and that Trump’s barbarian persona appeals to those malcontents. However, the public is no more angry than in past election cycles that have seen the rise of protest candidates like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and, more recently, the annoying and ignorant bitchiness of the Tea Party. And like Trump, they have all failed to ignite more than the same small contingent of kvetchers. It is the same crowd who cling to the belief that Obama is the anti-Christ.

Adding to the journalistic malpractice that characterizes the Trump coverage, is the suggestion that Bernie Sanders is the progressive version of Trump. What unadulterated bull. Trump actually is an angry, visionless loudmouth who attracts the blind devotion of the dimwitted rabble who are equally irate. Sanders, on the other hand, isn’t angry, he’s passionate. He is offering a positive agenda of detailed policy proposals on the economy, social justice, foreign affairs, the environment, Social Security, and health care. That’s the difference between Sanders, an affirmative reformer, and Trump, an opportunistic blowhard. And Sanders has also proven that he has the sort of broad-based support that Trump has never been able to muster, even after receiving millions of dollars worth of free airtime on Fox News. In recent polls Sanders is beating Trump head-to-head by twenty points.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The foregoing notwithstanding, we can expect the media to continue their pitifully hollow presentations of current events. The question is whether they are doing it because they are too lame to figure out the obvious reasons for what is unfolding, or because they are addicted to the ratings they enjoy when they play along with the hype of a celebrity candidacy. If they were honest they would just start pushing for a “Draft Kim Kardashian” movement and quit pretending that Trump’s campaign is anything different.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Cities To Avoid Like The Plague: Glenn Beck’s Guide To Godless America

If you’re looking for someplace new to live, or to pack up the kids for a family vacation, you won’t find a better list of potential destinations than the one that Glenn Beck is promoting. On his radio program this morning (video below) he ranked what he called “cities to avoid like the plague,” saying that “These are the cities that you do not want to live anywhere around as things get worse and worse.”

Glenn Beck Messiah

It is a perpetual oddity that people who profess to be patriots with a worshipful regard for America’s exceptionalism (aka American Supremacy) are so ready to condemn large swaths of the nation they pretend to love. The lucky locales that made this list are…

  1. St. Louis
  2. Washington, DC
  3. Minneapolis-St. Paul
  4. Las Vegas
  5. Milwaukee
  6. Los Angeles
  7. Boston
  8. Detroit
  9. Columbus, Ohio
  10. St. Petersburg, Florida
  11. Phoenix
  12. Denver
  13. Seattle
  14. San Francisco
  15. Portland, Oregon

The criteria Beck used came from a study by the Public Religion Research Institute that ranked the top three “religious traditions” (which includes religiously unaffiliated) in major metropolitan areas. Naturally, Beck’s ranking consists of the cities with the highest percentage of unaffiliated residents. It is Beck’s opinion that these dens of iniquity will suffer disproportionately when God unleashes his wrath upon the sinners of the world, which is due any day now.

The lunacy of this outburst (setting aside the imminent terrorism of an angry God) is that many of those same cities are also bastions of devout religiosity. In most of them the believers far outnumber the alleged heathens. And Beck doesn’t take into account that the unaffiliated group is not comprised exclusively of atheists. It also includes believers who simply do not associate themselves with a particular flavor of faith.

What’s more, Beck limited his list to fifteen cities, ending with St. Louis whose percentage of unaffiliated is twenty-two. That also happens to be the percentage for the nation as a whole. So if St. Louis is doomed, so are the rest of us. And Beck conveniently left out that his own home in Dallas is 18% unaffiliated, only a few points lower than St. Louis. In fact, if Beck had not arbitrarily stopped with fifteen cities, Dallas would have shown up at #24, easily within the range of doom.

Also not on the list is the imaginary holy city Beck proposed to build, Independence, USA. From his description it sounds more like Jonestown than Valhalla. Nevertheless, he promised it would be a haven for the righteous devotees of God. Well, that is, his version of God. And we know that, in addition to warning people off of certain sinful cities, he has also warned people to steer clear of churches that don’t meet his standards of divinity. Specifically he told his listeners to run as fast as you can from any church that uses the words “social or economic justice.”

The good news is that if Beck’s deranged travel guide serves any purpose it is that the cities in it will be blessedly free of apocalyptic evangelists frightening away visitors and residents. The fewer followers of Glenn Beck that are in any city, the better off that city will be. So hopefully his disciples will take heed of his warning and stay from the listed cities. And that will certainly be cause for those cities to celebrate. Here’s hoping your city is on the list.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.


Fox News Suddenly Embraces The Environment To Scold The EPA For Toxic Spill In Colorado

The science deniers at Fox News have spent years dismissing the claims of environmentalists on matters relating to everything from water and air quality, to endangered species, to clean energy, to climate change. The network has vigorously denounced advocates for reform as propagating hoaxes or having ulterior financial motives. And always at the top of their list of evildoers is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Fox News

Pretty much every Republican presidential candidate has called for some measure of interference with the EPA’s mandate, up to and including abolishing the agency that began with an executive order by Republican president Richard Nixon.

In Colorado last week an EPA crew accidentally breached a debris dam that resulted in a massive flow of arsenic, lead, and other toxins into the Animas River. The crew had been working to repair leaks that were already leaching toxins into the river. It was an unfortunate accident that occurred during a commendable effort to restore the local ecosystem.

However, on Fox News this became a villainous atrocity by pernicious characters who aspire to deliberately destroy America. They have had numerous stories that explicitly and disparagingly cite the EPA’s responsibility for the spill as if it were intentional. Furthermore, they go out of their way to report the outrage of the local victims. What’s interesting about that editorial spin is that they never do the same when it is a corporation that was responsible.

For instance, when a pipeline burst near Williston, North Dakota, Fox didn’t once address the “anger” it may have caused. Instead, they interviewed the pipeline’s owner who gave assurances that everything would be fine. Fox covered another incident in West Virginia the same way. In North Carolina, toxic sludge from a coal ash dump polluted the Dan River, which was already contaminated from a previous spill. There, Fox quoted a Duke Energy spokesperson who downplayed the incident saying that “no immediate action was necessary.”

In story after story Fox declined to criticize the guilty energy companies whose greed created environmental nightmares. They pointedly neglected to advocate for penalties or reform. But in this story, where the EPA is the culprit, Fox repeats their name with noticeable sneers and insists that the agency needs to be reigned in. It is the most disingenuous, hypocritical, and self-serving expression of environmentalism imaginable.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Surely the events that led to the EPA crew’s accident should be investigated and all efforts to prevent further incidents should be taken. But Fox News obviously doesn’t care about that. They only care about slandering a government entity that was trying to improve an already harmful situation. As opposed to the energy companies whose accidents occur while they are trying to line their pockets.

And it should not be forgotten that many of those same polluting energy companies are advertisers on Fox News and other Fox media outlets. So as the corporations profit from their dirty enterprise, Fox News profits right along with them. Indeed, Fox has a financial incentive to bury bad news about their advertisers and to exaggerate accusations against their foes at the EPA.


Let’s Recall When Megyn Kelly Was Exploited By Fox News With Sultry Pin-up Pictures

The news has been thick with well deserved criticisms of misogynistic neanderthal Donald Trump whose attacks on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly sunk to new lows of indecency. But we should not forget that Kelly has never been a paragon of journalistic virtue. In fact, it can be argued that she surpasses the sensationalist right-wing biases of her former colleague, Glenn Beck. More to the point, Kelly has not been above blatantly marketing her own sexuality in a notorious cheesecake spread in GQ Magazine.

As reported here at News Corpse five years ago, Kelly allowed herself to be objectified in order to boost ratings for reasons that have nothing to do with her job. Journalists are not rock stars or tabloid queens. They are professionals who should be judged by their qualifications and experience. It is wholly inappropriate for Fox News to degrade and disrespect their news staff in this manner. And they don’t do it with Bret Baier. What does that tell you?

Megyn Kelly


From November 19, 2010:

Much has been made about the curious “coincidence” that almost every female Fox News anchor is a young, attractive blond. I’m sure there is an innocent explanation for it. But anyone at Fox who complains about them being characterized as eye candy hired to exploit their sexuality had better first take a look at Megyn Kelly’s new spread for GQ Magazine. It’s not exactly a play for journalistic integrity.

Setting aside the cheesecake, Kelly is hardly a journalist. She makes headlines out of trivialities and seeks to sensationalize items that would be cut from the National Enquirer. Her stories about the New Black Panther Party never put into context that they were a tiny band of gadflies that no one took seriously. Her reports on the financing of the non-mosque that was not at ground zero were embarrassingly devoid of any evidence of the allegations she made. If you’re wondering why she hasn’t reported on that lately, it may be because her correspondent for the story, Charles Leaf, is in jail awaiting trial for sexually assaulting a four year old girl.

The feature in GQ includes an interview wherein Kelly reveals how seriously she takes her job as a journalist:

GQ: You sit behind a glass table that shows off your legs.
Kelly: Well, It’s a visual business. People want to see the anchor.

That must be why Bill O’Reilly wears those low-cut blouses. In another example of her commitment to news, she was asked…

GQ: Do you think the act of deciding what to cover and what not to is in itself a political act?
Kelly: It’s not political. Television is a service but it’s also a business. And in choosing what you’re going to put on your program, you have to figure out what’s going to appeal to your audience and what’s going to rate.

That explains the incessant bashing of liberals as well as the glass table. But how pathetic that she anchors a so-called news show and thinks that ratings should be the measure of what constitutes news. She goes on to boast about Fox being the number one cable news channel. But somehow she is not familiar with her colleagues on the network. She asserts that “I really don’t know much about the Glenn Beck empire.” However, she supports his right to free speech. To this GQ asked…

GQ: There’s the First Amendment and then there’s spreading obvious misinformation.
Kelly: That happens at a lot of channels. I think some of those allegations against Beck may have foundation and that some are blown up by detractors.
GQ: Which allegations have foundation?
Kelly: I’m not going to get into specifics.

That’s swell. Kelly just declared that at least some of the allegations about Beck spreading misinformation are true. Let that sink in for a minute. One news network anchor is accusing her colleague of saying things on the air that are obviously false. Can you imagine the uproar if Anderson Cooper were to have said that about Wolf Blitzer? But my guess is that no one will even notice this. After all, everybody expects to be misinformed if they’re watching Fox News. It hardly matters if it’s Beck or Kelly or Hannity or Cavuto or O’Reilly. In fact, Kelly can hardly complain because she is just as guilty as Beck of misinforming her audience.

I suppose that if you believe that misinforming viewers is no big deal, and that ratings should decide news content, and that partisan, sensationalism is a reasonable substitute for honest reporting, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone when you pose for risque centerfolds for men’s magazines. Just please don’t ask to be taken seriously as a journalist.


News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.


Fox News Is Silent On The Donald Trump/Megyn Kelly “Blood” Feud

FOR THE RECORD:

It was back on Friday that Donald Trump took a perverse swipe at Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly saying that “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever”

Fox News Megyn Kelly

It’s now Sunday morning and Fox News has not reported on the comment once. It’s complete radio silence. This is a particularly egregious omission considering that Fox did report that Trump was uninvited to the RedState conference sponsored by notorious misogynist Erick Erickson, whose stated reason for the snub was the “blood” comment. So Fox mentioned the revoked invitation, but not the reason.

Furthermore, Trump was interviewed by phone on four of the five Sunday morning news programs. The one exception was Fox News Sunday. They declined because they insisted that the interview be in-studio. So Fox went Trumpless, while NBC’s Meet The Press hosted Trump who had previously said that “Sleep eyes @ChuckTodd is killing Meet The Press. Isn’t he pathetic? Love watching him fail!” In the MTP segment Trump defended his numerous attacks on the appearance of women by saying that “It’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good looking” And so delusional. Even if it were true it doesn’t excuse his reprehensible behavior.

Finally, on Fox’s media analysis program, MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz didn’t even discuss the “blood” comment. He played the clip from CNN then led the discussion away from it to Kelly’s debate questions. He explained that his interview with Kelly took place before Trump made the comment, however, his introduction didn’t. He opened the segment saying “I spoke with the host of The Kelly File on Friday night. This was an hour before Donald Trump made his harshest and most personal comments about her.” So Kurtz acknowledged that the remarks were harsh and personal, but never addressed them in the interview segment or the panel discussion that followed.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Apparently the whole topic makes Fox News very nervous. They can’t be trying to hide it because it’s all everybody else is talking about. They can’t be trying to protect Kelly because the best way to do that would be to make clear what Trump said. So what are they trying to hide?

Addendum: Another notably absent figure is Grizzly Mama and “real” feminist, Sarah Palin. She has not said a single word on this subject. In fact, she hasn’t tweeted or posted anything on her Facebook page since the debate. Way to stand up for women, and former colleagues, Sarah.

Update via Gabriel Sherman, New York Mag: “One Fox personality told me that Fox producers gave instructions to tell in-house talent not to bring up Trump’s controversial comments that Kelly had ‘blood coming out of her wherever’ during the debate.” So this was a deliberate editorial blackout. NYMag has some other interesting items about Fox and Trump in peace talks.


The Republican Guide To Assessing Donald Trump’s Verbal Vomit

With each new day it seems there is another intemperate remark flowing from the sewer that is Donald Trump’s mouth. The latest toxic spill involves Trump’s repugnant comment disparaging Fox News anchor, and debate moderator, Megyn Kelly saying that “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.”

Donald Trump

Trump’s thinly veiled suggestion that Kelly’s menstrual cycle bore responsibility for the questions she asked was both childish and sexist. And his assertion that blood was “coming out of her eyes,” or elsewhere, was not nearly as disgusting as the feculence that comes out of his mouth.

Not that Kelly is a paragon of feminist virtue. From the start of her Fox News gig she has exploited her womanly charms. As her star ascended she was interviewed by GQ magazine complete with sultry photos. And when GQ asked her why she sat behind a glass table that showed off her legs, she said that “It’s a visual business. People want to see the anchor.” Which explains why Bill O’Reilly wears those low-cut blouses. But Kelly’s willingness to market her own allure doesn’t make her fair game for neanderthals like Trump.

Up until now Trump has avoided any real consequences for his thuggery. But there have already been some serious repercussions for Trump’s latest display of rank incivility. Erick Erickson, whose RedState organization is sponsoring a conservative conference today, has uninvited Trump from the event which features several other GOP candidates. Erickson, it should be noted, is a notorious misogynist whose language frequently crosses the lines of decency. This is the same guy who called former Supreme Court Justice David Souter a goat-f*cking child molester.” And he is offended by Trump?

There is also news that a senior Trump advisor has either resigned or been fired, depending on which slimeball you believe. Either way, Roger Stone is no longer working on Trump’s campaign. Stone is a Fox News contributor and a proud Republican dirty-trickster who founded an anti-Clinton organization called “Citizens United Not Timid,” or C.U.N.T. And he is offended by Trump?

Apparently there is a need for a more detailed guide to evaluating the bullsh*t that is such an integral part of the Trump campaign and persona. So News Corpse has put together this handy reference for confused Wingnuts, Teabaggers, and Fox News viewers:

    NOT ACCEPTABLE:

  • Insulting Fox News darling Megyn Kelly.

Got it? Follow this simple guide and you can’t go wrong when sinking to the lowest depths of human behavior. It remains to be seen if Trump will suffer any long-term harm from this loathsome episode. He may just get another pass, because his noxious attitude is generally regarded as appealing in the Republican Party. They truly are, as they like to remind everyone, revolting.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Fox News/GOP Trumparama: Where Donald Trump Becomes Dumber Than Sarah Palin

The first debate for the Republican Party nomination for president of the United States came off last night and pretty much matched the hype, at least so far as the pompous, bombastic, assclown Donald Trump is concerned. Trump lived down to expectations by being insulting, egotistical, and thoroughly lacking in anything resembling the knowledge or temperament to be president. Therefore, I predict that his blockhead Republican supporters will continue to give him high marks.

The hallmark of Trump’s performance was his obvious evasion of the substance in most of the questions in favor of acting like jerk (although he was certainly not acting). And the answers he gave approached and surpassed the brain-dead ignorance of his BFF, and potential running mate, Sarah Palin. The one thing that Trump established during the debate was that he has zero comprehension of the complex issues involved in running the country that he obviously hates with a passion.

Donald Trump Hell Hole

The Fox News moderators seemed to go out of their way to appear probing and confrontational. That is to their credit as it makes them look more like legitimate journalists who challenge their subjects. However, no one should mistake that pretense of legitimacy for actual legitimacy. Their performance for a couple of hours during a special event doesn’t erase a career of bias and lies. What it did get them was a fiercely childish rebuke from Trump who later tweeted that “Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly,” and “@FoxNews trio, especially @megynkelly, was not very good or professional!” (Curious that he focused so intensely on the panel’s only woman). And for good measure, Trump went after Fox’s resident pollster saying that “@FrankLuntz is a low class slob.” Very presidential.

The Washington Post put together an interesting analysis of the time distribution between the candidates. And – surprise – The Donald came out way ahead of his rivals clocking 10:31. Rand Paul trailed the pack with only 5:00. Jeb Bush came in second with 8:47. And everyone else got less than seven minutes. So Trump managed to snag about 30% more airtime. Was that deliberate on the part of Fox News? If so, was it done in order to help Trump by giving him more time for America to get to know him, or hurt him by giving him more time for America to get to know him?

The debate featured mainly the routine blather of politicians giving freshly scrubbed versions of their stump speeches. So to avoid wallowing in the vacant talking points of the affair, I have isolated the only parts that really matter. What follows, for your entertainment pleasure, is every question asked of Donald Trump and his spittle-inflected answers (along with my commentary which will be brief because Trump’s assholiness really doesn’t need much embellishment). [If you are a masochist, here is the complete debate transcript]

Baier: Is there anyone on stage who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican party and pledge to not run an independent campaign against that person?
Trump: I cannot say. I have to respect the person that, if it’s not me, the person that wins, if I do win, and I’m leading by quite a bit, that’s what I want to do. I can totally make that pledge. If I’m the nominee, I will pledge I will not run as an independent. But — and I am discussing it with everybody, but I’m, you know, talking about a lot of leverage. We want to win, and we will win. But I want to win as the Republican. I want to run as the Republican nominee.

Classic Palinesque word salad. After rambling incoherently, Trump agrees not to run as a thrid party candidate if he is the GOP nominee.

Kelly: You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”
Trump: Only Rosie O’Donnell.

Oh, so that makes it OK?

Kelly: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
Trump: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that. But you know what, we — we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That, I can tell you right now.

So misogyny is still in vogue among Republicans. And Trump’s excuse that he doesn’t have time for political correctness is just his way of justifying hate speech. His time is so constrained that he’s forced to be vulgar. Imagine the consequences if that behavior came from the White House directed at members of congress or foreign leaders. Also notable was the laughter and support from the audience who apparently think it’s OK to call women pigs, etc.

Wallace: Mr. Trump, it has not escaped anybody’s notice that you say that the Mexican government, the Mexican government is sending criminals — rapists, drug dealers, across the border. Governor Bush has called those remarks, quote, “extraordinarily ugly.” You have repeatedly said that you have evidence that the Mexican government is doing this, but you have evidence you have refused or declined to share. Why not use this first Republican presidential debate to share your proof with the American people?
Trump: So, if it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration, Chris. You wouldn’t even be talking about it. This was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement. And I said, Mexico is sending. Except the reporters, because they’re a very dishonest lot, generally speaking, in the world of politics, they didn’t cover my statement the way I said it. The fact is, since then, many killings,murders, crime, drugs pouring across the border, are money going out and the drugs coming in. And I said we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly. And I don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall so that people can come into this country legally. But we need, Jeb, to build a wall, we need to keep illegals out.

What utter bullspit. People have been talking about immigration for decades. And it has been a major political issue throughout the Obama administration without Trump’s help. Trump’s only contribution to the discourse was to smear immigrants as criminals and rapists and spread disinformation.

Wallace: Mr. Trump, I’ll give you 30 seconds — I’ll give you 30 seconds to answer my question, which was, what evidence do you have, specific evidence that the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border? Thirty seconds.
Trump: Border Patrol, I was at the border last week. Border Patrol, people that I deal with, that I talk to, they say this is what’s happening. Because our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid. And the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for them. They don’t want to take care of them. Why should they when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them? And that’s what is happening whether you like it or not.

Note that Trump still never answered the question regarding his alleged evidence of Mexico sending criminals to the U.S., whether you like it or not.

Baier: Mr. Trump, ObamaCare is one of the things you call a disaster.
Trump: A complete disaster, yes.
Baier: Saying it needs to be repealed and replaced. Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?
Trump: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here. What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid. You know why? Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune. Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.

Once again, Trump completely evades the question as to how his position on single-payer changed, or even if it did. He just rambled on with false complaints about providing insurance for his employees. Permitting the sale of insurance policies across state lines is not a health care plan. And his promise to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves is as a hollow imaginary as those of the rest of the GOP who have been making the same promise for six years without ever coming up with a plan.

Baier: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single- payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use — you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
Trump: You’d better believe it.
Baier: So what specifically did they do?
Trump: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.
I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.
Baier: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?
Trump: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

Well, that explains it. Trump gave Hillary Clinton millions of dollars to get her to attend his wedding. That seems like a bad deal. Seems like he could have gotten her to go for a lot less. Was he that desperate for guests that he had to give them extravagant bribes? The fact that he really thinks she went because of his donations is proof of his idiocy. And the fact that he thinks everyone else will believe that his donations were intended only to get wedding guests is even more idiotic.

Wallace: Mr. Trump, you talk a lot about how you are the person on this stage to grow the economy, I want to ask you about your business records. From corporations, Trump corporations, casinos and hotels, have declared bankruptcy four times over the last quarter-century. In 2011, you told Forbes Magazine this: “I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage.” But at the same time, financial experts involved in those bankruptcies say that lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars. Question sir, with that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?
Trump: Because I have used the laws of this country just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetera. I have never gone bankrupt, by the way. I have never.

Excuse me, what am I saying? Out of hundreds of deals that I’ve done, hundreds, on four occasions I’ve taken advantage of the laws of this country, like other people. I’m not going to name their names because I’m not going to embarrass, but virtually every person that you read about on the front page of the business sections, they’ve used the law. The difference is, when somebody else uses those laws, nobody writes about it. When I use it, they say, “Trump, Trump, Trump.” The fact is, I built a net worth of more than $10 billion. I have a great, great company. I employ thousands of people. And I’m very proud of the job I did. Again Chris, hundreds and hundreds of deals. Four times, I’ve taken advantage of the laws. And frankly, so has everybody else in my position.
Wallace: Well sir, let’s just talk about the latest example which is Trump Entertainment Resorts, which went bankrupt in 2009. In that case alone, lenders to your company lost over $1 billion and more than 1,100 people were laid off. Is that the way that you’d run the country?
Trump: Let me just tell you about the lenders. First of all, these lenders aren’t babies. These are total killers. These are not the nice, sweet little people that you think, OK? You know, I mean you’re living in a world of the make-believe, Chris, you want to know the truth. And I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City, which by the way, Caesars just went bankrupt. Every company, Chris can tell you, every company virtually in Atlantic City went bankrupt. Every company. And let me just tell you. I had the good sense, and I’ve gotten a lot of credit in the financial pages, seven years ago I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered, and I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I’m very proud of it. I want to tell you that. Very, very proud of it. And by the way, this country right now owes $19 trillion. And they need somebody like me to straighten out that mess.

And what was his response to the people he screwed out of a billion dollars? He never actually said, except to insult them as “killers.” And he is ignoring the hundreds of vendors and small businesses whose products and services he used but refused to pay for. Using bankruptcy laws is also not responsive to the question. It doesn’t explain how he would handle the nation’s deficit, unless he intends to put the country into bankruptcy and screw all Americans. To be fair, that has actually been the policy of the GOP for the past hundred or so years.

Kelly: Mr. Trump, in 1999, you said you were, quote, “very pro- choice.” Even supporting partial-birth abortion. You favored an assault weapons ban as well. In 2004, you said in most cases you identified as a Democrat. Even in this campaign, your critics say you often sound more like a Democrat than a Republican, calling several of your opponents on the stage things like clowns and puppets. When did you actually become a Republican?
Trump: I don’t think they like me very much. I’ll tell you what. I’ve evolved on many issues over the years. And you know who else has? Is Ronald Reagan evolved on many issues. And I am pro-life. And if you look at the question, I was in business. They asked me a question as to pro-life or choice. And I said if you let it run, that I hate the concept of abortion. I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I’ve very much evolved. And what happened is friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances. And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.

As far as being a Republican is concerned, I come from a place, New York City, which is virtually, I mean, it is almost exclusively Democrat. And I have really started to see some of the negatives — as an example, and I have a lot of liking for this man, but the last number of months of his brother’s administration were a catastrophe. And unfortunately, those few months gave us President Obama. And you can’t be happy about that.

As usual, Trump failed to address the question. He never said when he became a Republican or when his views changed. He limited his response to abortion, but that leaves out the question’s full context that asked about his identifying as a Democrat on a variety of issues. He seemed to imply that he was a Democrat only because there were so many others in New York. So he will just adopt the party of those around him? For the record, Democrats don’t want him.

Baier: General Qassem Soleimani, he’s blamed for hundreds of U.S. troops death in Iraq, and Afghanistan. His trip to Russia appears to directly violate U.N. Security Council resolutions to confine him to Iran. So, Mr. Trump, if you were president, how would you respond to this?
Trump: I would be so different from what you have right now. Like, the polar opposite. We have a president who doesn’t have a clue. I would say he’s incompetent, but I don’t want to do that because that’s not nice. But if you look at the deals we make, whether it’s the nuclear deal with 24-hour periods—and by the way, before you get to the 24 hours, you have to go through a system. You look at Sgt. Bergdahl, we get Bergdahl, a traitor, and they get five of the big, great killers leaders that they want. We have people in Washington that don’t know what they’re doing. Now, with Iran, we’re making a deal, you would say, we want him. We want out our prisoners. We want all these things, and we don’t get anything. We’re giving them $150 billion dollars plus, they are going to be—I’ll tell you what, if Iran was a stock, you folks should go out and buy it right now because you’ll quadruple—this, what’s happening in Iran, is a disgrace, and it’s going to lead to destruction in large portions of the world.

Other than making a crude, ad hominem insult aimed at the President, Trump totally ignored the question asking what he would do about General Soleimani. He just rattled off his standard talking points that were wholly unrelated to the question. Clearly he doesn’t have a clue. I would say he’s incompetent, but I don’t want to do that because …. Oh hell, he’s incompetent.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Closing Statement: Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t win anymore. We don’t beat China in trade. We don’t beat Japan, with their millions and millions of cars coming into this country, in trade. We can’t beat Mexico, at the border or in trade. We can’t do anything right. Our military has to be strengthened. Our vets have to be taken care of. We have to end Obamacare, and we have to make our country great again, and I will do that.

That was close. He nearly didn’t work his trademarked slogan into the debate. However, he did express his oft-repeated view that America is a hell hole. No wonder the so-called patriots on the right love him so much. They share a deep and abiding disgust for the country.


Obama’s Right: Ayatollahs Are Making Common Cause With Republicans

The auto-outrage detector of the right-wing establishment is blinking fiercely over an offhand remark made by President Obama yesterday. The President was delivering a detailed address about the Iran nukes deal in the hopes of persuading Congress to ratify it. He covered specifics including the prohibitions that would be imposed on Iran, the provisions for any breach of the agreement, and the consequences of not passing it in Congress. However, the entirety of Obama’s remarks were summarily dismissed by his wingnut critics so that they could hyperventilate over this:

“It’s those [Iranian] hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the [nukes] deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

GOP Iran

That’s right. The President correctly pointed out that the hard-liners in the Republican Party, in opposing the nuke deal, are taking precisely the same position as the Ayatollahs in Iran. Granted for different reasons, but the factual basis is undeniable. Much of the motivation on the part of the GOP stems from their determination to oppose anything that comes out of this White House, no matter what the merits. And this isn’t the first time that Republicans and other conservatives in politics and the press, have sided with our enemies to satisfy their own political aspirations. Here are a few examples:

  • Republicans declared their opposition to a UN Arms Trade treaty that would regulate the transfer of tanks, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, warships, missiles, etc., between member nations. There were only three votes against the treaty in the UN: Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Consequently, the GOP is aligning itself with three of the most brutally oppressive regimes in the world.
  • Conservative media provides free advertising for terrorists, and they must stop it. While it is reasonable to report on the brutality that is being engaged in throughout the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq and Syria, there is no useful purpose in blanketing the airwaves with images created by terrorists for their own benefit.
  • For several years now Fox News and other conservative media have feverishly demanded that President Obama explicitly associate terrorism with Islam. When you look at who is insisting that the terrorists be called Muslims you will see only the terrorists themselves, Fox News, and their political allies on the right. On the other side is Obama, religion and terrorism experts, and most of the world’s Muslims. So the real question here is why is Fox News and right-wing politicians joining with the terrorists in an effort to brand their heinous activities?

There are other areas of agreement between the American Taliban and foreign extremists. In fact, much of the agenda of the Islamic radicals is identical to the platform of the Republican Party. They both believe that religion should be the foundation of government. They are both virulently anti-gay. They would both enforce a submissive role for women who must not be permitted to make decisions about their own bodies. They both have a perverse obsession with guns. They both want to use education for indoctrination. They both refuse to accept settled questions of science. And they both advocate overthrowing the secular governments that they despise.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Considering the array of similarities between these groups it is surprising that the right would make such a big deal about Obama’s comments. It only brings additional attention to the policy positions that they share. And the more they gripe about it the more people will be exposed to their repulsive ideological harmony.


Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Flips Off Jon Stewart

The most bitter, paranoid, hostile media boss in the business just affirmed all of those character flaws in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter. Roger Ailes was questioned about the end of Jon Stewart’s reign as host of The Daily Show and, while pretending to be above it all, he revealed that he is painfully obsessed with Stewart and delighted to see him go.

ailes-the-hutt

The interview began with Ailes whining about Stewart being “after us for years,” but insisting that “he never made a dent.” That’s probably why they did so many stories attacking him. Stewart has been the target of some scathing insults on Fox News from everyone from Bill O’Reilly (who called Stewart “a key component of left-wing television,” and his audience “stoned slackers”) to Sean Hannity (who called Stewart “a sanctimonious jackass”). Ailes himself demeaned Stewart as a lefty who hates conservatives, adding that “He’s crazy.” Pretty much every time Stewart did a segment that mentioned Fox News even briefly, the dullards at Fox would retaliate with venomous assaults consuming valuable airtime.

Ailes then demonstrated the signature reality distortions for which Fox News is known.

Ailes: As he faces the end of his career, he’s beginning to wonder: ‘Is this as popular as I’m ever going to get? Is this as much power as I’ll ever have? The one person I could never get rid of was Roger Ailes. I tried. I did everything I could.’ This was all a plea to his lefty friends. I think he’s disappointed that he didn’t accomplish that goal, and we, of course, supplied him with half of his comedy. It’s just a matter of disappointment.

Ailes had to reach deep into his anus to pull out the assertion that Stewart is at the end of his career. Stewart is not retiring. He is leaving one job and moving on to other projects. And as for his future popularity, here are a few people who left The Daily Show but whose careers have soared: Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Steve Carell, Larry Wilmore, Olivia Munn, Ed Helms, Kristen Schaal, and Michael Che.

It is also a notable indication of how ego-driven Ailes is to believe that Stewart’s goal was to get rid of him. In truth, Stewart’s goal was to expose the dishonesty, prejudice, and hypocrisy of Fox News, as well as other mainstream media outlets. And that is a goal he accomplished in spades. Nobody regards Fox News as an impartial news source, not even conservatives. And most people recognize that Fox practices a wholly unethical brand of pseudo-journalism and thinly disguised propaganda for the Republican Party. Stewart deserves some of the credit for that.

One thing that Ailes gets right is that Fox News supplied Stewart with much of his material. But that’s an odd thing to brag about. In effect Ailes is conceding that so much of what he airs on Fox is ludicrous bullspit that is ripe for mockery. Indeed it is, and Stewart took full advantage of it.

Elsewhere in the interview Ailes exhibited a severe case of denial. He said that he never worries about Stewart, but that is contradicted by how knee-jerk reactive he and his network are to anything Stewart says. He said that Stewart couldn’t work for Fox because “He would depress everyone.” Like everyone at Fox isn’t already swimming in despair as they anguish over everything that President Obama does and says. He complained about Stewart’s mood saying that “You can’t say that many negative things about people unless you’re really unhappy about something.” Has Ailes ever looked in the mirror? [Note: that was meant figuratively to point out that he and Fox News are the ones that are relentlessly negative. However, if you want to take literally, that works too]

As a parting shot in the interview, Ailes launches an unprovoked attack on his own corporate family:

Ailes: Knowing [Stewart], he’ll direct movies with sort of a left-wing point of view, and America’s a terrible country. Somebody needs to tell him that 90 percent of what Hollywood puts out already does that. He’s going to have to find another niche.

Somebody needs to tell Ailes that 21st Century Fox is one of the top five film studios in the world (it is #4). It also owns one of the four broadcast television networks (Also #4). It is firmly ensconced in Hollywood and is as responsible for its output as any other studio. Perhaps he is upset that it was Warner Bros., not Fox, that released that despicable, unpatriotic, left-wing movie “American Sniper,” that grossed more than any other film in 2014.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

It is apparent that Roger Ailes is a deeply disturbed and emotionally tormented individual. His loathsome and cantankerous personality is evident in this interview and in the programming on Fox News. It would be almost pitiful but for the damage he causes. And in the end, he must know that Stewart will be remembered far more fondly than he will, and for a far more honorable body of work.


Fox News Presents The Trump-tacular Republican Party Propaganda Telethon And Bitchfest

While we are still six months away from the first Republican Party caucus in Iowa, and fifteen months from the 2016 election, Fox News is feverishly promoting its exclusive presentation of the very first primary debate among the candidates for the GOP nomination for president. Can you feel the excitement?

The debate which will take place on Thursday will feature ten candidates selected by the powers that be at Fox News. The remaining seven losers will get their own kiddie matinee affair in an earlier afternoon timeslot. Fox manufactured the selection process and provided the means for the candidates to attempt to influence it. Fox’s method of using the average of the five most recent national polls has been repudiated by nearly every independent expert. The value of national polls at this stage of an election is literally zilch since very few candidates have mounted national campaigns, preferring to build support in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. What’s more, the variance in the numbers between the candidates is within the margin of error for the majority of the field. Therefore, it is absurd to use such polls to determine who is ahead.

Nevertheless, Fox News has committed to this method of selection. Well, except for the fact that, for some inexplicable reason, they decided to skip the fifth most recent poll (by Monmouth) and instead average in the sixth (by Quinnipiac). This breach of their own rule results in advancing Ohio governor John Kasich into the primetime debate in place of Texas governor Rick Perry. That’s significant because it would look bad if the governor of the state where the debate is being held (Cleveland, OH) were excluded from participating. Also of significance is that Kasich is a close personal friend of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and a former employee who hosted his own Fox show for six years. But I’m sure that had nothing to do with it.

Adding to the absurdity is that candidates hoping to be in the primetime debate had to goose their standings in the polls to assure themselves a spot. And, of course, the best way to reach prospective Republican poll respondents is to advertise on Fox News. So this sham methodology does serve the purpose of inflating Fox’s bank account.

Now that the ten lucky Primetimers have been identified, Fox has also revealed their placement on the debate stage. For some unexplained reason they decided that the candidates with the highest average poll numbers would be placed in the center. Why? As previously noted, the earliness of the election season and the surveys’ margins of error make the poll numbers irrelevant. However, the stage placement does have a visual impact that casts the center spots as stars and the fringes as supporting players (or literally fringe candidates). It would have been more fair and balanced had Fox assigned spots randomly or alphabetically or by how many Reagan bobbleheads they can stuff up their bum.

This sports bracket-style staging puts reality TV star Donald Trump right where he wants to be. He is effectively in the CEO’s spot in the boardroom from where he can point at his rivals and fire them. He will be in nearly every shot where his reactions will become a key part of the program whether or not he is speaking. Fox News should have just dropped the facade and let Trump have a gold-plated podium with his name in big capital letters. They could also give him above-the-title billing. You have to wonder whether these things were part of the contract rider demands submitted by the Trump team.

GOP/Trump Debate Stage

The content of the debate can be predicted with a fairly high degree of probability. Kira Lerner at ThinkProgress has already done so in article outlining 11 Things You’ll Probably Hear During The First GOP Debate That Are Totally False.” Indeed, the debates will be an extended opportunity for Republicans to bitch about how awful America is and how much worse it will get if Hillary Clinton is elected next year. By having to split the debates into two programs it actually creates even more time for the bitchfest. If you watch both debates you will have spent a marathon three and a half hours exposed to right-wing hate and fear mongering. This might be a good time to invest in pharmaceuticals or distilleries because the use of anti-depressants and alcohol are sure to spike during and after these programs.

Finally, if anyone is expecting Fox’s moderators to be fair and balanced, you will be sorely disappointed. Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace have proven themselves to be shamelessly biased. This does not always mean favoritism toward the Republican Party, but also favoritism within certain factions of the party or for favorites of the network’s bosses. Even the candidates are suspicious of the impartiality of the moderators. The New Yorker’s Gabriel Sherman disclosed that Trump’s organization is already complaining:

“Given Fox’s power to shape the 2016 GOP primary, campaigns are taking an aggressive approach to lobbying Ailes before Thursday’s debates. According to a source close to the Trump campaign, Trump’s friend Rudy Giuliani called the Fox chief the other day and asked Ailes to make sure Megyn Kelly doesn’t go after Trump in her questioning. The feeling inside the Trump campaign — following an on-air grilling in May — is that Kelly doesn’t like Trump.”

So the candidates feel that it’s appropriate to try to bully the moderators into going soft. That is not a left-field assumption since GOP chairman Reince Priebus explicitly cited that as a reason for taking more control over the debate process (control that he subsequently ceded to Fox News). Two years ago as he was drafting plans for 2016 Priebus said that…

“…the thing that is ridiculous is allowing moderators, who are not serving the best interests of the candidate and the party, to actually be the people to be deposing our people. And I think that’s totally wrong.”

So Priebus has declared that the debate moderators are there to serve the interests of the party and the candidates – not the voters or democracy or the country. By that standard we can expect that the demands by Trump’s surrogates, and those of the other candidates, will be adhered to. From the party’s perspective the debates are nothing more than free television advertising time and the moderators are prohibited from trying to elicit anything of substance from them.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

That said, I think the moderators will stray from the straight and narrow path that Priebus has proscribed. They will do so out of a desire to maintain a sliver of self-respect. So expect a challenging question or two that will enable them to say afterwards that they were professional and probing. Of course, asking a probing question does not guarantee a substantive response. My prediction is that there will be nothing substantive revealed during the entire three and a half hour affair. The best we can hope for with regard to entertainment value is if someone successfully provokes Trump into a meltdown, which shouldn’t be that hard to do.